Increments

Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani
  • 0,0 (0)
  • Philosophie
  • Tous les mois

Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

  1. #104 (C&R Chap 10, Part V) - The Duhem-Quine Thesis

    -6 j

    #104 (C&R Chap 10, Part V) - The Duhem-Quine Thesis

    It's only taken us 104 episodes of talking incessantly about Karl Popper to get one of the most important and popular criticisms of falsification: The Duhem-Quine thesis. Should we wrap the podcast here? Is it game over? We discuss Does AI need more economic thinking? The role of background knowledge in conversation The allure of verificationism The Duhem-Quine thesis The role of competing theories in combatting the thesis Are conspiracies the price we pay for independent thinking? References Michael I. Jordan on ML Street Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AREWYbVtX64 Our conversation with Ben Recht: https://www.incrementspodcast.com/91 Quotes People involved in a fruitful critical discussion of a problem often rely, if only unconsciously, upon two things: the acceptance by all parties of the common aim of getting at the truth, or at least nearer to the truth, and a considerable amount of common background knowledge. This does not mean that either of these two things is an indispensable basis of every discussion, or that these two things are themselves ‘a priori’, and cannot be critically discussed in their turn. It only means that criticism never starts from nothing, even though every one of its starting points may be challenged, one at a time, in the course of the critical debate. - C&R, Chap 10 While discussing a problem we always accept (if only temporarily) all kinds of things as unproblematic: they constitute for the time being, and for the discussion of this particular problem, what I call our background knowledge. Few parts of this background knowledge will appear to us in all contexts as absolutely unproblematic, and any particular part of it may be challenged at any time, especially if we suspect that its uncritical acceptance may be responsible for some of our difficulties. But almost all of the vast amount of background knowledge which we constantly use in any informal discussion will, for practical reasons, necessarily remain unquestioned; and the misguided attempt to question it all—that is to say, to start from scratch—can easily lead to the breakdown of a critical debate. (Were we to start the race where Adam started, I know of no reason why we should get any further than Adam did.) - C&R, Chap 10 Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What kind of thinking does this podcast need? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

    1 h 3 min
  2. #103 - AI, Evolution, and The God Test (w/ Robert Wright)

    29 mai

    #103 - AI, Evolution, and The God Test (w/ Robert Wright)

    Did you ever see the video of two regular people trying to fight Eddie Hall, the strongest man on earth? Ben and Vaden bring that same energy to this conversation, where they gang up on Robert Wright on the subject of his forthcoming book The God Test: Artificial Intelligence and Our Coming Cosmic Reckoning. Bob is a sport about it (well, there was no choice really: we have an advanced copy of his book that we're holding hostage) and there are only one or two black eyes by the end. Subscribe to Robert Wright's podcasting empire NonZero on youtube and substack. And go buy one of his many books. We discuss Whether Bob was the OG podcaster Is there a directionality to evolution? Where Bob is on the AI fear and awe spectrum Whether LLMs have decoded the meaning in language Is AI best viewed as a tool or as superintelligence? AI-as-slingshot analogy References The God Test by Robert Wright Nonzero by Robert Wright William Paley and his pocket watch The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins Our conversation with Scott Aaronson Socials Follow us on Twitter at @RobertWrighter, @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What's the directionality of this podcast? Tell us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Robert Wright.

    1 h 47 min
  3. #102 - Criticizing Crit-rats (w/ Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen)

    12 mai

    #102 - Criticizing Crit-rats (w/ Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen)

    Turning on our own! Vaden sits down with Bruce Nielson and Peter Johansen to discuss some of the bad memes that run rampant in the online "crit-rat" community, in an attempt of some intra-tribal error-correction. Ben, scared of the retribution, runs away with his tail uncomfortably close to his thighs. Follow Bruce and Peter's work on the Theory of Anything Podcast. Sign up for the Theory of Anything podcast Patreon here, and Check out Peter's Many World of David Deutsch facebook group here. We discuss Bruce and Peter's origin stories Anarcho-capitalism and its (pseudo) connections to Popperian philosophy CritRat disbelief in mental illness What does the Universal Explainer hypothesis imply about mental illness and IQ? Is Anarcho-capitalism a foundationalist and utopian philosophy? Why are so many crit-rats Trump supporters? See Also Theory of Anything Podcast #136: Michael Golding on Mental Illness Theory of Anything Podcast #82: Popper's Ratchet Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani, @bnielson01 Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube I before E except after B? Send your best guess as to the spelling of Bruce's last name (no one knows) over to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Bruce Nielson.

    1 h 47 min
  4. #101 (C&R Chap 10, Part IV) - Was Popper Wrong about Verisimilitude?

    19 avr.

    #101 (C&R Chap 10, Part IV) - Was Popper Wrong about Verisimilitude?

    Wasn't Popper a falsificationist? Then why did he try to develop ideas about corroboration and versimilitude - the extent to which a theory was closer to truth than another theory? Isn't this verging dangerously close to verificationist territory? In our fourth ep on Chapter 10 in C&R, we wrestle with Popper's treatment of verisimilutude, both the formal and informal versions. Did the project fail? Was Popper out of his mind? Does this invalidate everything? We discuss Murders with ball-peen hammers Walking the line between verification and falsification Is science only after truth? Verisimilutude and its formalization Why the formalization fails Popper's three requirements for the growth of knowledge Popper's ratchet and the no ad-hoc rule Quotes Like many other philosophers I am at times inclined to classify philosophers as belonging to two main groups—those with whom I disagree, and those who agree with me. - C&R, page 309 I shall give here a somewhat unsystematic list of six types of cases in which we should be inclined to say of a theory t1 that it is superseded by t2 in the sense that t2 seems—as far as we know—to correspond better to the facts than t1 , in some sense or other. t2 makes more precise assertions than t1 , and these more precise assertions stand up to more precise tests. t2 takes account of, and explains, more facts than t1 (which will include for example the above case that, other things being equal, t2 ’s assertions are more precise). t2 describes, or explains, the facts in more detail than t1 . t2 has passed tests which t 1 has failed to pass. t2 has suggested new experimental tests, not considered before t 2 was designed (and not suggested by t1 , and perhaps not even applicable to t1 ); and t 2 has passed these tests. t2 has unified or connected various hitherto unrelated problems. - C&R, page 315 Let me first say that I do not suggest that the explicit introduction of the idea of verisimilitude will lead to any changes in the theory of method. On the contrary, I think that my theory of testability or corroboration by empirical tests is the proper methodological counterpart to this new metalogical idea. The only improvement is one of clarification. - C&R, page 318 Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube How many chromosomes does diethyl-methyl pentophosphate have, exactly? Tell as at incrementspodcast@gmail.com

    1 h 17 min
  5. #100 - Celebrating the Centennial

    26 mars

    #100 - Celebrating the Centennial

    100 episodes! To celebrate, Vaden tries to get personal with Ben, while Ben dodges his questions and wants to know how Vaden feels about incest. All in all, a pretty typical episode. The questions From Vaden to Ben: How is your side hustle going? Who are some of your major influences outside of Popper? How has the Popperian worldview influenced your day-to-day? What is the life of a nomadic academic like? What would you say to people who are considering mathematics as a career? Which charities do you recommend? From Ben to Vaden: How do you feel about looksmaxxing? Thoughts on medical assistance in dying? Ethics of Alex Honnold free soloing Taipei 101? Thoughts on Nation-Buiding? Incest - into it? Episode References #22 - Thinking Through Thought Experiments #66 - Sex Research, Addiction, and Financial Domination (w/ Aella) #58 - Ask Us Anything V: How to Read and What to Read #70 - ... and Bayes Bites Back (w/ Richard Meadows) #76 (Bonus) - Is P(doom) meaningful? Debating epistemology (w/ Liron Shapira) References Angus Deaton debates Abhijit Banerjee: https://nyudri.wordpress.com/initiatives/deaton-v-banerjee/ Christopher Hitchens and Robert Wright Sam Harris and Garry Kasparov Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power The Bomb in My Garden: The Secrets of Saddam's Nuclear Mastermind Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What is your favorite form of ince... actually nevermind, too much. Just email us at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

    1 h 21 min
  6. #99 - Debating Trump in Good Faith (w/ Don Robinson)

    6 mars

    #99 - Debating Trump in Good Faith (w/ Don Robinson)

    Ben is hesitant to talk too much about politics on the podcast. So, naturally, we're having a political debate. We have on a pseudonymous guest to talk Trump, MAGA, and what's wrong with the left and the right. We discuss Trump's politics as trial and error The dynamics of MAGA ICE activity in Minnesota Illegal immigration Would Popper have supported Trump? What does "incrementalism" mean in politics? Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube Cross the border into the increments discord and hit us up at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

    2 h 10 min
  7. #98 (C&R Chap 10, Part III) - What is truth?

    17 févr.

    #98 (C&R Chap 10, Part III) - What is truth?

    "What is Truth?", said jesting podcasters, who then stuck around for an answer. Back at it again with The Conjectures and Refutations Series (part three) on Chapter 10: Truth, Rationality, and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Can we say what truth is, even if we can never be certain we've found it? If not, can we say that science is approaching truth? How would we ever know? And why are so many theories of truth untrue? We discuss Ben's early reflections on Abigail Shrier's book Bad Therapy Why did Popper feel the need to answer this particular "what is" question? Can asking "what is truth" be a demogogic and bad-faith question? The correspondence theory of truth vs The pragmatic theory of truth vs The coherence theory of truth Alfred Tarski's formalization of the correspondence theory of truth Are there problems with the correspondence theory? The disagreement between Vaden and Deutsch on truth References Daniel Bonevac on the Correspondence theory of truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlG_VaN1LHQ Tarki's 1944 paper on the semantic conception of truth Tarki's 1933 paper "On the concept of truth in formalized languages" Deutsch's 2022 talk on truth: Musings about Truth # Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube It would be both useful, coherent, and correspond to our happiness if you signed up for our patreon or discord. Hit us up at incrementspodcast@gmail.com

    1 h 25 min
  8. #97 - Did Effective Altruism Have Ulterior Motives From the Beginning?

    23 janv.

    #97 - Did Effective Altruism Have Ulterior Motives From the Beginning?

    Two years without discussing effective altruism -- did you miss it? Not as much as Vaden, surely. And probably a right bit more than Ben. Well, we're back in the game with a spicy one. Was EA a front for AI safety from the beginning? Did the leaders care not a wit for global poverty? Is Ben going to throw himself out window if Vaden keeps this up? We discuss Feedback on our introspection episode The motives of the EA founders The felicia forum Is this a conspiracy theory? EA's strategic ambiguity Bostromism, transhumanism, and AI safety EA funding The public/core divide and the funnel model Quotes new effective altruists tend to start off concerned about global poverty or animal suffering and then hear, take seriously, and often are convinced by the arguments for existential risk mitigation - Will MacAskill Existential risk isn’t the most useful public face for effective altruism – everyone inc[l]uding Eliezer Yudkowsky agrees about that - Scott Alexander, 2015 Utilitymonster: GWWC is explicitly poverty-focused but high impact careers (HIC) is not. In fact, hardcore members of GWWC are heavily interested in x-risk, and I estimate that 10-15% of its general membership is as well. I’d take them seriously as a group for promoting utilitarianism in general. I’m a GWWC leader. [Redacted]: but HIC always seems to talk about things in terms of “lives saved”, ive never heard them mentioning other things to donate to. […] Utilitymonster: That’s exactly the right thing for HIC to do. Talk about lives saved with their public face, let hardcore members hear about x-risk, and then, in the future, if some excellent x-risk opportunity arises, direct resources to x-risk. - From felicia forum. References Gleiberman's paper: https://medialibrary.uantwerpen.be/files/8518/61565cb6-e056-4e35-bd2e-d14d58e35231.pdf Old EA wikipedia page (web archive): https://web.archive.org/web/20170409171350/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism Old CEA webpage (web archive): https://web.archive.org/web/20161219031827/https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/fundraising/ Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube Let us funnel you into the core group of super secret patreon supporters. Send us an email at incrementspodcast@gmail.com

    1 h 42 min
Tout afficher (105)

Bande-annonce

À propos

Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com.

Informations

  • Création
    Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani
  • Années d’activité
    2020 - 2026
  • Épisodes
    105
  • Classification
    Contenu explicite
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani
  • Site web de l’émission
    Increments

Vous aimeriez peut‑être aussi